Current analyses of the semantic structure of the ditransitive construction in English assume that the construction consists of approximately nine semantic subconstructions, namely those of actual, intended, retained and metaphorical transfer (and some corresponding subconstructions). An examination of the ditransitive construction in Icelandic reveals at least seventeen subconstructions in that language. In addition to most of the subconstructions found in English, the ones in Icelandic also denote transfer along a path, possession, utilizing, enabling, hindrance, constraining and mental activities. An investigation of the ditransitive construction in the most archaic Swedish and Norwegian dialects reveals a significant overlap with Icelandic, but also some overlap with English and German. This comparative evidence permits a reconstruction of the semantic structure of the ditransitive construction common to the Germanic language area.

Three ditransitive constructions can be found in varieties of British English: (i) the ‘prepositional object construction’, where the recipient is encoded as a prepositional phrase (gave it to him); (ii) the ‘canonical double object construction’, where the recipient precedes the theme (gave him it); and (iii) the ‘alternative double object construction’, where the theme precedes the recipient (gave it him). The last of these constructions is typically found in (north)western varieties of British English when both objects are pronominal, and most of the relevant varieties have a ‘canonical’ ordering (REC > TH) when the theme is non-pronominal. Consequently, there seems to be an ‘inconsistency’ in the clause structure of the varieties in question. Using comparative and historical evidence, this article addresses the question of how this inconsistency can be explained. The ‘paradigmatic mismatch’ under discussion is shown to be a remnant of Old English clause structure which can also be observed in other verb second languages such as Modern German. It is argued to result from a tendency for both verb positions (finite/left and non-finite/right) to attract direct objects. This tendency is regarded as an effect of performance preferences in natural language discourse.

This article seeks to shed more light on the well-studied, yet still challenging, dative alternation. It starts from the cognitive-typological suggestion of Croft (2001, 2003) that language-internal variation is subject to the same constraints as cross-linguistic variation (the semantic map model), and that careful language-specific research may therefore reveal facts about language in general. I argue that there is a parallel between dativisability and passivisability. Then, using a sample of active tokens from the British National Corpus of ditransitive give in both the indirect-object and double-object constructions and comparing these to a matched sample of passive examples, I evaluate the effect on passivisability — and hence dativisability — of the semantic parameters proposed in previous scholarship. The results are stated as a set of implicational universals. They should hold for all languages that feature the alternation, and make diachronic predictions as well. In addition to the semantics — which has been discussed in many previous studies — I argue that token frequency also plays a role in promoting dativisability — which has never been suggested before. The conclusion identifies some general implications for theoretical linguistics and for the practice of research on language structure and meaning.

This paper argues that language-particular restrictions on ditransitive constructions are best understood as instantiations of easily falsifiable implicational universals that can be explained functionally, rather than as falling out from a restrictive formal metalanguage. Well-known restrictions on ditransitives in English (*She gave Kim it) and French (*Elle donna Kim le livre) are shown to be instantiations of inverse patterns that are completely parallel to inverse patterns in monotransitive constructions. Moreover, ditransitive constructions are parallel to monotransitives in that they exhibit differential recipient marking and differential theme marking, analogous to differential object and subject marking.

In a recent article Gensler (2003) has argued that little can be said about the ordering of bound person markers of the T(heme) and R(ecipient) relative to each other or relative to the verb stem apart from the fact that the outer markers are likely to be the result of a second-level cliticization process. We take issue with this claim and document that quite successful predictions with respect to the ordering of the T and R markers can be made on the basis of morphological alignment. Taking as our point of departure the typology of ditransitive alignment outlined in Haspelmath (2004; 2005), we show that the ordering patterns in which the R is placed closer to the verbal stem than the T are favoured in all relevant alignment types apart from the indirective, which exhibits a preference for positioning the T closer to the verbal stem than the R. These preferences for the ordering of the R and T are argued to relate directly to the frequency of use of the relative person forms and thus are seen as constituting yet another piece of evidence for the usage-based model of grammar being developed within the functional-cognitive typological paradigm (cf. e.g. Barlow & Kemmer 2000; Bybee & Hopper 2001; Tomasello 2003).

This article examines the development of the three-participant construction from the two-participant construction in Oceanic languages. This development involves the use of possessive classifiers for recipient or beneficiary marking. Arguments will be put forward in support of the change as an instance of grammaticalization. The change has its origins in pragmatic inferencing: the possessor is construed as a recipient or a beneficiary. Moreover, the change from possession to reception or benefaction is regarded, in terms of reduced structural autonomy, as a shift from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status: the relation between the recipient/beneficiary and the verb is much tighter than that between the possessor and the verb. Evidence will also be brought to bear to demonstrate the grammaticalization of possessive classifiers as recipient or beneficiary markers. In Kusaiean and Mokilese, the grammatical change has resulted in newly created recipient or beneficiary NPs moving into different sentence positions. In Kusaiean and Mokilese, the use of possessive classifiers for beneficiary marking has been extended from transitive to intransitive clauses (i.e. clauses without direct object NPs). In Lenakel, one of the multiple possessive classifiers, all used to express possession, has been chosen and pressed into the service of encoding benefaction.

The present article examines the effects of transitivity on the encoding of indirect object. The examined features comprise affectedness, aspect and animacy. In addition, differences between what will be labelled as neutral vs. purposeful transfer will be discussed. The article shows that effects of transitivity are not confined to direct objects only, but transitivity has consequences for indirect object coding too. In addition, the article also shows that there are good reasons for coding the examined features on the indirect object. The most important of these reasons is represented by the fact that features of the referents of the indirect object are responsible for coding the relevant features. For example, an event of transfer is conceived of as completed, when the Recipient has received the transferred entity.